criteria that we set forth rather than the type of popularity or preordained individual. those are my thoughts. >> thank you, commissioner kingsley. >> i would like to support what commissioners hammer and dejesus said in terms of getting feed back from the public. i think we have community boards and regular monthly meetings set up in the various stations for community board meetings and what we may want to do is just put that on the agenda on those meetings and have a rotation among commissioners to be at those meetings to be able to ask similar questions of all the public at the various meetings and report back to the commission as to you know, our finding. the feed back from the community. >> thank you commissioner slaughter.

thank you, president mazzucco. i agree that we need to -- i guess i'm confused listening to commissioner hammer and commissioner dejesus. on one hand i hear people endorsing the process the commission went through a year and a half ago and not wanting to redo the work that has recently been done, but on the other hand, wanting and meeting. i agree we need input from the public in figuring out the best way to get it in an efficient manner. commissioners mazzucco and hammer, i met with the mayor shortly before our meeting last week and he expressed tremendous confidence in the commission's ability to do this but he did suggests he wanted a thoughtful process. he wanted an expeditious process and i agree with that. i have got no answer, but i'm concerned about opening up --

on the one hand, i very much want to hear and agree and figure out a way to get public comment efficiently and quickly, but i get concerned when we talk about setting up a process that could take a number of months and maybe that is inevitable that it is going to have to take a number of months, but as commissioner marshall said, we're dealing with some stark realities. we have only a certain number of months before we have a new mayor. i wouldn't like to have to spend three or four months doing this process and four or five months being right back at ground zero. i don't offer any unfortunately useful solutions but just my observations listening to the conversation so far. >> commissioner hammer, and just to clarify what i was suggesting isen an expeditious process. not what we did last time but a much more condensed one. i think we would proceed here

at city hall. what i'm ening is those forums relatively rapidly, maybe not 10 of them but maybe three so people felt they could come and speak openly and talk about the police department. a condensed one but so that people have a chance to speak out. >> thank you. commissioner marshall? vice president marshall: there is a couple of things in my mind. in my mind, we would build on what we have already done. if i would go out there, if we had already compiled a list, i wouldn't compile a whole new list. i would say is there something on here, i would certainly build on the work that we have already done, but i do think it is important, i don't want this thing to be open-ended. i think at some point we want this done in x number of time. if it is two months, fine.

eight months, fine. i don't really care, but we have to set a time frame or else we will just blowing in the wind here. i think everything back from -- then we can see how much we can accomplish in, you know, we're going to have a timeline, which is what you usually do when we do these things. i think we have to figure out first when we would like to have this done by and then we can build on all the other processes that it takes to get it. but i do think we should use the existing documents and work and profiles that we have, you know, that we have already accumulated in the prior search, because it wasn't that long ago. i wouldn't want to start all over again. >> thank you. commissioner dejesus? commissioner dejesus: i disagree. i don't think we need to do it in five days or eight days. i think we can do it in 30

days. i think it is important for commissioners who have not gone through process to meet with the community and get some input. that's step number one. step number two, then i guess for criteria, we got to decide whether we're going to keep the list that we have only or keep the list and open up to applications. i think we really need to talk about how we want to do that. i think we should build on what we already have and candidates we have already vetted that are already kind of available to us. vice president marshall: that's not what i was talking about when i said build on before. commissioner dejesus: see if we want to select from our list because if you're only talking a few months. if you're only talking a few months, we don't know who the next chief is going to be, i'm not really sure it is -- i don't know, open it up and try to doit in five days and interview somebody really quickly, i don't see that as

really thoughtful. >> it is impossible for us to do in five days because over the notice requirements i see lieutenant riley about to have a heart attack. i think that is impossible. i think we need to hear from the community. i like commissioner hammer's idea and your idea but confused about your idea just going with the previous list. commissioner dejesus: when you look it a, we can decide how we want it. i am just pointing out we have a list. >> we need to know who is interested in the job. commissioner slaughter? commissioner slaughter: i appreciate the idea that we had, the prior list. it seems like the use over the prior names that were vetted, while potentially useful doesn't eliminate the idea that the commissioners amongst us were not here to vet them. more over, we can figure out pretty quickly but we don't know if those candidates remain interested in a very different

landscape now than it did a year and a half ago. so we would be -- i'm sure that whenever we put out the word that says please get your an -- applications in by such and such a date, everyone knows this job is open. we'll get the names of people that are interested and people that are interested with their eyes wide open given the political realities that we face. i don't think anybody is suggesting we do in this in three days or five days. i like the idea, commissioner hammer of a targeted number of community meetings in a short period of time, in a few weeks or month period of time, set up a few meetings i think is critical that we get the input from the command staff and the rank and file and then proceed to accept applications and interview candidates. i don't necessarily think -- i don't think these things have

to proceed -- we can set up a timetable that says we want the applications in on such and such a date and we can be having our meetings while we deal -- in fact, i feel pretty strongly we don't want to leave -- leave that decision for later. i hope we come out tonight with we want applications in by such and such a day and during that time frame we'll get out and do the meetings that we do. president mazzucco; thank you. i would like to have an agenda by the time we leave tonight then we can move on the the next issue about the qualifications. we do need to have the time frame outlined tonight so there is clarity for the men and women of the police department and for the citizens of san francisco. >> if we could agree upon ourselfs the date by the application would be returned and and when this process could be completed.

i'll throw out a date and somebody can suggest a different one. something like two movepts out or 2 1/2 months out, we work hard, i'll propose april 15. we can move rapidly to hear from the community, to hear from our officers. i would think that we would have applications due in two weeks or so. i think that is enough. again, as commissioner slaughter said probably every police professional in the country knows this job is open. and then i think they are on parallel tracks that we begin listening to the community. all san franciscans know this is a big choice that will affect our lives. those who want to speak out should. by the time we do that, we'll have our list of candidates and begin our interviews. he put great faith in us that we will do this job well and i think we will. i think in partnership we

should move expeditiously and i think it is a good aspiration. president mazzucco; commissioner chan? commissioner chan: i think we're on the same waive length. i sate february 4 as the date, a friday. and the date that you set up, a date for us to make a recommendation to the mayor. >> it was. >> i would be happy to help with the cantonese community speaking meetings. i really want to push us to move into public comment and suspend our discussion because i notice everyone here and i want to make sure we can hear from everyone. we can come back to this discussion. president mazzucco; commissioner slaughter? commissioner slaughter: i think applications in two weeks makes sense. i think that if we give ourselves, i guess, if key for me on the april 1 day, personally i would like to see

if we can get a name to the mayor a couple weeks earlier than 1 and again, i think if we as a commission devote ourselves to time, we're only talking three or four community meetings, i think we can certainly get that done in the february time frame that we could hopefully shoot for it and have the first couple of weeks of march to do interviews and we could shoot for a mid march date to get it to the mayor. president mazzucco; commissioner dejesus? commissioner dejesus: i just wanted -- these dates are fine except for when are we going to get the application? there is an application here that we need to get printed and mail and get out. i guess we need to have a deadline when that is out and i think it should be two weeks from the date that that is published. i don't think it is fair to say two weeks and we haven't put the criteria out and it has not been published or given to

anybody. it is pretty detailed. you need to factor that in. i agree with commissioner hammer. i think april 1 sounds reasonable. there is a lot of coordination with our calendar and the community. that's just my two cents. president mazzucco; dr. marshall. commissioners can understand you're wanting to get the public in but i want us to take the -- they got to know what we're thinking here. if we have to take a little more time to firm it up the best we can tonight, i would like to do that. i would like, you know, we have got some dates now. they kind of know what we are thinking. they haven't voted on anything but some beginning and end dates, a little bit of -- about the process. i just want to underscore. i just want to -- no matter what, the poovel candidates is going to be limited -- pool of

candidates is going to be limited. if there is somebody wonderful out there, you know, who knows that -- i could be gone no matter if i'm the greatest cop who ever lived, who may be here or someplace else, so if we don't get a ,000 applications, remember, it has nothing to do with the commission. it has to do with the realities of things. we're moving through with the process that we can best carve out despite that. >> i agree with dr. marshall having gone through this process before. >> i think we go to april 1, commissioner hammer and we're basically inviting people to apply for an eight-month job. we give the mayor time to do his vetting and interviews. the last time the mayor interviewed the three candidates and it probably took him about a week or two before he came up with an answer and

you throw that into of into it and we're looking at a 7 1/2 month job. commissioner davis made a great point. we have to put out the job posting. what we need to do, unofficially tonight, we should tell people that, you know, we're opening up, there is obviously a job opening near san francisco to be police chief. get your resumes and cover letter ready. it is pretty standard for any job and then we can find job posting but the reality is there are already people interested in the job, showing their interest. in fact, we have already received one application. there is no mystery here. here is my suggestion given the parameters again, i know, we really do need to go out into the community. i suggest that today is wednesday, january 19. i would like to see us have -- i propose -- please break out your calendars that we have applications to the commission two weeks today by wednesday,

february 2. and in the -- i would like to pick three commissioners who are willing to put together a revised posting that we did last time. commissioner dejesus, commissioner chan. >> the ones who didn't do it last time. >> you want it, you can have it. >> ok. >> we might as well do that. let's make it pefrl clear the job is open and we're accepting applications. i would ideally like to see us give mayor some time so that he can spend some time vetting the candidates. april 1, i just don't like that day for a lot of reasons. so what i would like to do, i think we can do this. i think reasonably. we're going to have to dedicate time like we did last time. it became a full time job for the commissioners in.

i spent more time with the commission than my family last time doing interviews. we get it written on february 2. i suggest between that time, i would like to see us gets this to the mayor by tuesday, march 15. it is two less weeks than what commissioner hammer is looking for. commissioner hammer: you're ambitious. >> i amleto beneficiaries but given the -- aam ambitious. but given program terse. >> if we can get this written one out by the 21st, two weeks from the 21st is february 4. that is my only concern. if you don't get the written one out on the 21st you're given a week and two days, three days to get the application in. it is less than two weeks. that's all i'm saying. if we get the -- if we can commit to get the written one out by the 21st, two weeks from that is the fourth. >> what we could do is meet

this week. let's meet on tuesday and go over and do the formal written announcement next wednesday night. we can announce it wednesday night. let's do that, wednesday. points of inquiry, mr. president? is there a period of time we have to leave the application open? >> i don't know that there is a legal time you have to have it open. it sounds like one idea you're considering is to present to the commission a proposed job announcement for approval next week. usually i believe the department of human resources does that for the city so they would work with the police department's h.r. division to make hurry that the announcement was make sure that the announcement was properly posted. >> what is the time requirement for the city in terms of how

long a posting needs to take place? is there a minimum time? >> i'm not aware that there is a minimum time. i would have to go back and look at the civil service rules and h.r. procedures. i can follow it up with whoever is going to be the point person on the commission. i don't believe there is a mandates period of time, however. this is commission's process so you get to decide here. >> yes. so we're -- what we'll do with is -- we have our expert in the back of the room. we'll help lieutenant fall biwith this. and lieutenant riley. he's hiding back there. for the record, lieutenant riley has been assigned to us to help with this process. the question is what date do we want to give for applications to be in and then the interviews will follow thereafter. lieutenant riley, i don't mind

you asking what is the posting requirement we need to set up for a commission hearing that will be in closed session obviously to interview the applicants? >> unaccustomed as i am to addressing the commission -- [laughter] commissioner. if you are -- if we're going hold a meeting of the commissioners and an official commissioner meeting here at city hall, of course we need 72 hours notice and any location away from city hall, we need 15 days notice. that would include the hall of justice. >> thank you. vice president marshall: go ahead. you want to finish? >> stay there, lieutenant riley. don't go anywhere, please. >> if i can say this, maybe the thing i remember that impacted me more than anything about the previous search, was as much as

everyone tried to find out who they were, where they were, this commission was unflappable. i got to say that. even i was surprised. the press was wrong. everybody was wrong. and a lot of that, our meetings were held in places, we're in bunkers and places like that. all of those things have to be taking into consideration. i actually think it is going to be more difficult this time. that's the way i feel. so i -- i think it is going to be a much -- you know, us being quiet about everything we do, it is going to be really important here. so let's just keep all of that in mind in this and i just hope that we can do as well as we did last time. all the things they thought we were doing turned out to be not. i think that is really the most important thing that we're

doing here. >> can i just address that? the timeline issue? i believe obviously, before the commission goes into closed session, it needs to have an open session meeting and i believe one of the ways that the commission addressed the issue of protecting the confidentiality over the applicants and also meeting its public meeting requirements. the meeting here at city hall, do the open session here at city hall and then go into closed session and move to an alternate location. there was a little bit of road tripping involved in the interview process but that would mean that you would be able to do the 72-hour notice because the meeting would be convened here but then you would travel once you went into closed session to an alternate location and then we come back into open session again at this location. it is a little bit of traveling and some inconvenience but it dust protect the confidentiality of the process. -- does protect the

confidentiality of the process. >> commissioner hammer? commissioner hammer: i put april 1 to get the conversation going. if my fellow commissioners are equally ambitious, i'm happy to join the aspiration of march 15. if we have to move it back two weeks, then we do. i question the timing to revise this previous job listing, which is pretty darn good, except probably the dates and numbers are wrong. the time 14 case from the date you folks publish it. that is my suggestion. that will be -- the date once you do put it out. as soon as they come in, we start the interviews, i think we should talk about a bit tonight but i really want to get to folks who have been waiting here so long.

we should set up the meetings in san francisco to hear from the people. >> the proposal was 14 days after the committee issues the application. >> we will have to work with -- regarding that. can we get that done early next week? >> it depends on how quickly a final draft announcement can be finalized. >> i would move that the subcommittee be given the power to amend this document and the deadline be closed.

>> we need to get public comment. >> i go back to the reality of this situation, people will apply or not apply regardless of what we put in their. i am all for letting the committee get it done. >> make sure it gets directed to the police commission office. it will be put in safe keeping point we had last time in terms of the confidentiality of the applicants. we have the aspiration of getting the final posting next week. more on that next wednesday night.

>> if you establish a committee, you will have to me to on this. >> you should not establish a committee to work on it. you should appoint one person to be in charge of the process and that can work with less than a quorum. >> i think that that makes sense. >> we are ready to go. i will contact the commissioner. >> the goal is for the commissioner to get this to the department of human-resources. there is not a change in the dates and salary. public comment on this issue. >> land the director of san

francisco open government. i think you know what mine opinion will be, how much is open and how much is put into this personnel. i would like to add on to the comment in the haste makes waste category. what it says to me is that if you put out of these time frames looking at a job that you have for only six or seven months, many of the top-qualified candidates would not apply. someone who is out there and is not qualified is in a position of trust and they will not want to take the chance of moving here. what this does is that it limits it primarily to officers in the

san francisco police department. if they accept had positioned and the new mayor says that they are not satisfied, there is so low service protection without any real lack. at some point, that limits the candidate said he will get outside of the community. you just read a list of things that you looked at the last time the not for the public. we have no idea what you are reading. what i heard read sounded very vague and very nonspecific and most members of the public would have no idea when you save those things. i would like questions relating to issues that have been in the press and in the public eye for a while and how you will ask those questions.

problems with a lack of disclosure to the defense council relating to officers that will testify in the previous testimony and so forth. there has been a number of issues that have come up and you see them in the paper. the best example i can think of is -- which went away for years. i don't think that anyone knows what happened. two of the officers said a lot of court. i don't know what the city ended up on the hook for that. to me, this whole process should be out in the open. the only things that really qualify as a personnel is a review of the resmae and application.

you should have a clear objective before you go in. >> good evening, i am the new co-chair of the -- palace has been part of the community for nearly 40 years. one of the first things that you mentioned is community input and community perspective. i would like to personally say that i would appreciate the commissioners perspective as well as others on having some more public comment related. i recognize that you did a great amount of work a year and a half ago. a lot changes over that time. within